Inflation, filming techniques and external market forces have all impacted on the economics of film production. Costs rose steadily during the silent era with Ben-Hur (1925) setting a record that lasted well into the sound era. Television had a direct impact on rising costs in the 1950s and early 60s as cinema competed with it for audiences, culminating in 1963 with Cleopatra; despite being the highest earning film of the year Cleopatra did not earn back its costs on its original release. The 1990s saw two thresholds crossed, with True Lies costing $100 million in 1994 and Titanic costing $200 million in 1997, both directed by James Cameron. Since then it has become normal for a tent-pole feature from a major film studio to cost over $100 million, and an increasing number of films are costing $200 million or more.

This list contains only the films that are already released to the general public, and no films that are still in production, post-production or just announced films, for the reason that these costs can still change in the production process. Listed below is the net negative cost: the costs of the actual filming, not including promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc.) and after factoring in any tax rebates or credits. The charts are ordered by official budget amounts where they are known. Most studios, however, will not give a statement on the actual production costs, so only estimates by professional researchers and movie industry writers are available. Where budget estimates conflict the productions are charted by lower-bound estimates.

Only productions with a budget over a nominal value of $150 million U.S. dollars are listed here. Due to the effects of inflation, all but three of the films on the chart have been produced since the turn of the century, with Waterworld (1995) being the oldest film to be included.

Cleopatra is still one of the most expensive films of all-time adjusted for inflation, and in real terms was the most expensive film for over 30 years.

The productions listed here have their nominal budgets adjusted for inflation using the United States Consumer Price Index[185] taking the year of release. Charts adjusted for inflation are usually ordered differently, because they are dependent on the inflation measure used and the original budget estimate.

The Soviet War and Peace, released in four parts across 1966 and 1967, is sometimes cited as the most expensive production ever: Soviet claims stating it cost $100 million (nearly $700 million accounting for inflation) were circulated in the American press during its showing there. However, its financial records reveal it cost $9,213,013 (about $80 million in today's money).[nb 33] Another notable omission is Metropolis, the 1927 German film directed by Fritz Lang, often erroneously reported as having cost $200 million at the value of modern money. Metropolis cost $1.2–1.3 million at the time of its production, which would be about $24 million at today's prices according to the German Consumer Price Index.[nb 34]

Throughout the silent era the cost of film-making grew steadily as the films became longer and more ambitious, and the techniques and equipment became more sophisticated.[237] It is not known for certain which was the first film to cost $1 million or more to produce and several myths have grown over time which belie the known facts: D. W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916) is reputed to have cost $2 million but accounts show it cost exactly $385,906.77;[238]A Daughter of the Gods (1916) was advertised as costing a million dollars but Variety estimated its true cost at $850,000.[216] The first film that is confirmed to have had a $1 million budget is Foolish Wives (1922), with the studio taking advantage of its exorbitant price and advertising it as "The First Real Million Dollar Picture".[40]

The most expensive film of the silent era was Ben-Hur (1925),[216] costing about $4 million—an astronomical sum in those days at twenty-five times the $160,000 average cost of an MGM feature.[237] It is unclear which sound era production superseded it as the most expensive film, although this is commonly attributed to Hell's Angels (1930), directed by Howard Hughes; the accounts for Hell's Angels show it cost $2.8 million, but Hughes publicised it as costing $4 million, selling it to the media as the most expensive film ever made up to that point.[239] The first film to seriously challenge the record was Gone with the Wind (1939), reported to have cost about $3.9–4.25 million,[216] although sources from the time state that Ben-Hur and—erroneously—Hell's Angels cost more.[240]Ben-Hur was definitively displaced at the top of the chart by Duel in the Sun in 1946, meaning Ben Hur possibly held the record for 21 years.

The 1950s saw costs rapidly escalate as cinema competed with television for audiences,[241] culminating with some hugely expensive epics in the 1960s that failed to recoup their costs.[216] The most famous exponent of this trend was Cleopatra (1963) which still lost money on its initial release despite being the highest-grossing film of the year.[242] Since the 1990s, film budgets have once again seen a dramatic increase as the use of CGI has become commonplace in big-budget features.[243]

^ abcFinancial statements filed in the United Kingdom show that production costs for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides totaled $410.6 million between October 2009 and April 2013 offset by a tax rebate of $32.1 million.[1]

^ abcdefPirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End were produced together on a combined budget of $450 million.[177]Budget overruns reportedly pushed the final cost of the joint production up to a total of $500 million. The individual budget estimates conjecture how the overall budget was divided between the two films, but many of the costs are indivisible such as the fees for the actors who appeared in both films and would most likely have been contracted for a single fee, and the cost of the sets common to both films.[9]

^ abFinancial statements filed in the United Kingdom show that production costs for John Carter totaled $306.6 million between 2010 and 2013 offset against a tax rebate of $42.9 million. The net budget was $263.7 million, a figure consistent with Disney's claim that the film cost "around $250 million".[4][206][207]

^ abEstimates for Avatar's cost have varied considerably with some as high as $500 million.[208] The $500 million figure also incorporates the $150 million marketing budget, and the costs of developing the necessary 3-D cameras and motion capture technology which were independently financed by private investors and none of which are included in the production cost.[209][210] Recent estimates put the production costs at about $310 million, although a 15% tax rebate from New Zealand is expected to reduce the final bill by $25–30 million,[211][212] which would ultimately put the cost at around $280 million.[209]Avatar was initially budgeted at $190 million[213][214] but the studio later acknowledged it cost $237 million after its budget came under intense media scrutiny.[13] A further $1 million per minute were spent on the nine minutes of extra footage in Avatar: Special Edition.[215]

^ abExpenditure on The Dark Knight Rises is estimated to be about $250–300 million, with the cost of production coming down to around $230 million after tax credits.[14]

^ abStudio reps for Disney state the cost of the production was $225 million, although other estimates put the film's cost at around $250 million with over $150 million spent on worldwide marketing and distribution.[16]

^ abPeople close to Warner and the film's production offered slightly different estimates for its final cost, ranging between $225 million and $270 million, split between the studio and Legendary Pictures LLC.[217]

^ abMost reports put the production cost of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug at around $225 million and spending on marketing upwards of $100 million,[218] although some estimate the budget to be slightly higher at $250 million.[219]

^ abSome estimates put the production budget for Men in Black 3 at nearly $250 million;[220] however, a $38 million tax rebate from New York is expected to bring the final cost down to about $215 million.[221]

^ abDisney claim that Oz the Great and Powerful cost $215 million,[27] although an insider suggests its cost was approximately $235 million.[222]

^ abcWarner Bros. put the production cost of Superman Returns at $223 million, and around $204 million after factoring in tax credits. Some other estimates place the figure higher, but these higher numbers include the development costs of earlier aborted projects, taking the total figure to $263 million.[37] Warner later stated it cost $209 million,[271] although the film's director Bryan Singer maintains that the approved budget was $184.5 million, and it eventually came in at $204 million: "So the hard, honest number is $204 million."[38]

^ abThe official cost of The Amazing Spider-Man is unknown; however, various estimates put its cost at $200 million,[58] $215 million,[228] $220 million,[229] and $230 million.[230]

^ abA knowledgeable source says the first two installments cost $315 million each, and that's with Jackson deferring his fee. A studio source insists that number is wildly inflated and, with significant production rebates from New Zealand, the cost is closer to $200 million a movie.[60]

^ abThe Amazing Spider-Man 2 cost over $200 million, with some sources placing the budget at over $250 million.[233]

^Financial statements filed in the United Kingdom show that production costs for Guardians of the Galaxy totaled $232.3 million offset by a tax rebate of $36.4 million.[69]

^Paramount Pictures admit to spending $190 million on World War Z,[74][75] although sources at rival studios estimate the true cost is closer to $210 million.[76]

^New Line Cinema claim that Jack the Giant Slayer cost $185 million, although insiders suggest it cost over $200 million.[78]

^Warner Bros. state that the film's budget was $180 million. Some industry insiders say the true cost of the film was closer to $200 million, although the film's director, Guillermo del Toro, claims to have brought the film in under budget.[86][87]

^There have been contradictory statements in regards to the budget with people close to the project having stated it cost $175 million[104] and $225 million[106] respectively to produce, although Universal Studios dispute the higher figure.[105]

^Some sources put the budget for Maleficent slightly higher at $180 million,[108] while others place it at $200 million.[109]

^Most sources place the cost of Edge of Tomorrow at $175–200 million,[112] with several picking out the specific figure of $178 million.[113][114]

^Most reports put the cost of Jupiter Ascending at $175–179 million,[116][117][118][119] although The New York Times puts the budget slightly higher at $200 million.[120]

^ abcAfter Waterworld ballooned from its initial $100 million budget,[262] people involved in the project estimated the final production cost at around $175–180 million,[263] with Kevin Costner—also a producer on the film—confirming it had cost $172 million.[121] Including distribution and marketing the total cost of producing and releasing the film came to $235 million.[264]

^ abThe production budget for Terminator 3 was initially set at $169–170 million,[223][224] making it the most expensive film ever to be greenlit at the time.[225][226] Budget statements put the final cost of the film at $187 million (or $167 million excluding the production overhead).[143][227]

^A person close to the production put the budget for Fast & Furious 6 at close to $200 million. However, a spokesman for Universal claimed that the final budget was $160 million due to tax credits in the United Kingdom.[154]

^The budget for Godzilla was $195 million, with tax credits bringing the net cost down to $160 million.[170]

^A spokesman for Universal stated that Robin Hood cost $155 million to produce after tax credits; however, this figure does not take into account the $25 million costs incurred by an earlier aborted production, and estimates put the total cost of the production at $200 million.[171][173]The Wrap obtained a purported copy of the budget showing expenditure totalling $237 million.[172]

^ abFinancial documents filed in New Zealand show that production costs on The Hobbit trilogy totaled $745 million through March 2014 against a $122 million tax rebate.[176]

^ abWingnut Films stated that the budget for the three Lord of the Rings films was $260 million, however estimates of the cost during production varied from $270 million to $360 million, none of which were confirmed or denied by Wingnut.[178] Estimates put the final cost at around $285 million.[2]

^ abThe Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were produced together at a reported cost of $127 million[265][266][267] and $110 million[268] respectively for a combined total of $237 million. Some reports put the combined cost of the production at $300 million.[269][270]

^Summit Entertainment projected a total cost of $263 million for both parts, with $127.5 million to be spent on the first part, and the second costing $136.2 million.[182] After tax rebates, Part 1 cost $110 million,[183] and Part 2 cost $120 million.[184]

^The $100 million figure, based on Soviet statements, appeared frequently in the U.S. press in 1968, when War and Peace was released in the country. The New York Times reported it was "the most expensive film ever made... Russians say cost $100 million."[186]New York Magazine asserted that "what the Russians estimate to be the equivalent of $100 million"[187] was invested in making it. Other, conflicting estimates were issued by the Soviets to news outlets in other countries (see War and Peace: Budget). Yet, the protocols of the Soviet State Committee for Cinematography from 25 August 1964 record a meeting of the agency's directors in which a final budget of 8.5 million Soviet ruble was approved for the series; it included all expenses to be made, including 2.51 million to cover those of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, which supplied thousands of soldiers as extras and other assistance.[188] According to the producers' financial statements, compiled after the work on the series was completed in August 1967, the total cost of the film came to 8,291,712 Soviet ruble[189]—or $9,213,013 with the 1967 0.9 ruble = $1 exchange rate.[190] It is technically impossible to adjust the ruble for inflation since the Soviet Union did not formally acknowledge it; instead, the USSR would periodically reprice everything from goods to labour to services. Inflation is usually measured in Western free market economies using a price index such as the Consumer price index, but no such measure existed in the case of the Soviet Union. However, it is possible to measure the increase in average annual earnings in the Soviet Union and there is typically a strong correlation between average earnings and inflation.[191] In 1965 the average annual wage in the Soviet Union was 1,158 Soviet rubles,[192] and in 2013 the average monthly salary in Russia was 30,000 Russian rubles (the Russian ruble replaced the Soviet ruble in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union), amounting to 360,000 rubles per year.[193] This puts salary inflation at over 30,000% (if the 1998 redenomination of the ruble is factored in, but if not then the true inflation level is 1,000 times higher at 30,000,000%). Applying this rate of inflation to the original cost (8,291,712 rubles) of War And Peace would yield an approximate amount of 2.5 billion Russian rubles. At an exchange rate of approximately 30 rubles to the US dollar,[194] this would be equivalent to about US$80 million, and considerably less than the $700 million figure that is often reported.[195][196][197]

^Metropolis originally cost 5.1 million[198] or 5.3 million[199] Reichsmarks in 1927, depending on the source, equivalent to $1.2–1.3 million at a conversion rate of US$1 = RM 4.2080.[200] Calculating the effects of inflation is complicated, since Germany has undergone two currency conversions since Metropolis was produced. As part of the Marshall Plan following World War II, the Deutsche Mark replaced the Reichsmark in 1948 to stave off hyperinflation. However, this was not a simple redenomination exercise: while the Deutsche Mark replaced the Reichsmark at an official rate of DM 1 to RM 10, this only applied to the actual currency, with wages, products and services charged at a rate of DM 1 to RM 1 (see Deutsche Mark: Currency reform of June 1948). This was equivalent to introducing 1000% inflation into the old currency before replacing it. As of 1948, Metropolis would have cost RM 6.2 million adjusted for inflation according to the German Consumer price index; redenomination would have inflated that to RM 62 million, which would have been equivalent to DM 6.2 million in the new currency.[201] This only applied to West Germany, but following German reunification, the Deutsche Mark later replaced the East German mark and exchanged at parity. The second redenomination occurred in 1999 when Germany converted to the euro, and this time fully adhered to the conventions of a basic redenomination, with all financial assets exchanged at a rate of DM 1.95583 to €1;[202] at this time, Metropolis would have cost DM 29 million,[201] equivalent to €15 million after conversion. At today's prices, it would cost about €17 million,[201] equivalent to US$24 million at the 2009 exchange rate of €0.7198 to the dollar.[194] Often reported as having cost $200 million at the value of modern money,[203][204] this estimate is clearly in error by a factor of ten; it is most likely that it came about by adjusting the original cost for inflation, converting the German marks to euros, and then converting the euro figure to US dollars. The process probably failed to account for the fact that the original cost was in Reichsmarks and not Deutsche Marks, so must be divided by 10 to get the equivalent Deutsche Mark value.[205] In applying this methodology, the estimate would come down to about $20 million, and more in line with the CPI figure.

^ abWith top tickets set at an all-time high of $5.50,Cleopatra had amassed as much as $20 million in such guarantees from exhibitors even before its premiere. Fox claimed the film had cost in total $44 million, of which $31,115,000 represented the direct negative cost and the rest distribution, print and advertising expenses. (These figures excluded the more than $5 million spent on the production's abortive British shoot in 1960–61, prior to its relocation to Italy.) By 1966 worldwide rentals had reached $38,042,000 including $23.5 million from the United States.[216]

^The figure for Who Framed Roger Rabbit includes the production overhead. Amblin Entertainment and Touchstone Pictures placed the actual expenditure on the film itself at around $50 million,[250] but it is not clear if the figures for the other films on the list include or exclude the overhead. Interest payments on the budget came to $17,105,000 which brought the full financial commitment on production to over $75 million.[249]

^ ab20th Century Fox put the official budget of James Cameron's The Abyss (1989) at $43 million;[253] however, some estimates place the true cost as high as $70 million, which would have made it the most expensive film made up to that point.[254]